You know what bothers me...?
Aug. 12th, 2003 06:08 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackofallgeeksDisclaimer: I am not one who cares very much for self-censorship. I believe very strongly that no opinion is worth having unless one is willing to stand up and openly express that opinion, and I feel further than an inability to defend one's position shows a lack of understand of what one professes to hold. This having been said, the following discussion touches on a charged issue, and it's one of the many topics in which, I fear, my opinion is not very popular at all. Thus being the case, and as it is never my intent to offend anyone, I have cut most of it, save the opening paragraph and this disclaimer. If you so choose, feel free to pass by. At the same time, I won't force a decision on you -- I am leaving it open, and I not only accept but petition of you commentary.
Enough of this, let us begin.
Rachel brought up a good point just this afternoon, questioning why I would be 'saddened' by what's going on in the Episcopal Church. Now, my post had said that I feared for the church falling in on itself, and I do -- the dilemmas of faith that I'm sure it would cause are not a thing I would wish on anyone. But, when asked why I would be saddened, regardless, I admit that my first thoughts were, "I don't know."
It does rather seem like a discrepancy at first. My whole reasoning thus far against homosexuality has been it's tendency toward sex necessarily outside of marriage, a very reasonable and defensible position to take. I like to imagine that all my positions are reasonable and defensible. And so, my second thoughts were, "Well, it's really their blessing of same-sex marriages, and the subsequent affront to the sanctity of marriage, which upsets me."
And this is true, that is a big part of the offense I've taken. But I fear something's missing from this, and even at that, it's incomplete. This is only the more visible part of what bothers me. I must admit that there is something, on a low level, that is just... not-right about an Openly Gay Bishop.
It's that two-word phrase there that keeps catching me, 'openly gay.' I can't yet tell why, but every time I go over it, it tugs at my mind like a thorn to a knit sweater. Now, you se, the Catholic Church (and, necessarily, myself) has nothing against homosexuals personally. I have some very good friends who are gay, and as I've said before, I can personally relate to a girl who finds another girl attractive rather than one who finds men attractive -- I like the girl, too. The trouble isn't in the desires or tendancies or what have you -- God gave those to us all. The trouble is succumbing to those tendencies; the trouble is in the fulfilling of those desires; the trouble is in the act.
And that's where the phrase grabs me. Openly Gay. Now, I may be wrong, but that says to me that he has embraced his homosexuality. That he doesn't see it as a flaw, to be fought, but an attribute. and this is where he offends me, and this is where I become very unpopular, because it is a flaw, and it is to be fought against, just as I would and do fight as well as I can against the flaws I possess. much as I recognize, support, and respect him as a person, satisfying these desires are wrong; it's a sexual aberration, as sexuality was made to be between a man and a woman, for the unity of the couple and the procreation of new life. And this is what basically underlies my assertion that same-sex marriages assault the sanctity of marriage as such.
That being stated as such, of course, there is then only a small step to why an Openly Gay Bishop saddens me. And that is because, as Bishop, he is and should be a teacher and leader in faith and morals and ethics, and the idea that a man who has embraced his personal flaws rather than work against them would be put into that station... It bothers me on a very low level.
For those who have been offended by this, you have my email; I will allow each of you three free punches, or two kicks in the shin. But this is my position, and I stand by it until I am proved otherwise.
Enough of this, let us begin.
Rachel brought up a good point just this afternoon, questioning why I would be 'saddened' by what's going on in the Episcopal Church. Now, my post had said that I feared for the church falling in on itself, and I do -- the dilemmas of faith that I'm sure it would cause are not a thing I would wish on anyone. But, when asked why I would be saddened, regardless, I admit that my first thoughts were, "I don't know."
It does rather seem like a discrepancy at first. My whole reasoning thus far against homosexuality has been it's tendency toward sex necessarily outside of marriage, a very reasonable and defensible position to take. I like to imagine that all my positions are reasonable and defensible. And so, my second thoughts were, "Well, it's really their blessing of same-sex marriages, and the subsequent affront to the sanctity of marriage, which upsets me."
And this is true, that is a big part of the offense I've taken. But I fear something's missing from this, and even at that, it's incomplete. This is only the more visible part of what bothers me. I must admit that there is something, on a low level, that is just... not-right about an Openly Gay Bishop.
It's that two-word phrase there that keeps catching me, 'openly gay.' I can't yet tell why, but every time I go over it, it tugs at my mind like a thorn to a knit sweater. Now, you se, the Catholic Church (and, necessarily, myself) has nothing against homosexuals personally. I have some very good friends who are gay, and as I've said before, I can personally relate to a girl who finds another girl attractive rather than one who finds men attractive -- I like the girl, too. The trouble isn't in the desires or tendancies or what have you -- God gave those to us all. The trouble is succumbing to those tendencies; the trouble is in the fulfilling of those desires; the trouble is in the act.
And that's where the phrase grabs me. Openly Gay. Now, I may be wrong, but that says to me that he has embraced his homosexuality. That he doesn't see it as a flaw, to be fought, but an attribute. and this is where he offends me, and this is where I become very unpopular, because it is a flaw, and it is to be fought against, just as I would and do fight as well as I can against the flaws I possess. much as I recognize, support, and respect him as a person, satisfying these desires are wrong; it's a sexual aberration, as sexuality was made to be between a man and a woman, for the unity of the couple and the procreation of new life. And this is what basically underlies my assertion that same-sex marriages assault the sanctity of marriage as such.
That being stated as such, of course, there is then only a small step to why an Openly Gay Bishop saddens me. And that is because, as Bishop, he is and should be a teacher and leader in faith and morals and ethics, and the idea that a man who has embraced his personal flaws rather than work against them would be put into that station... It bothers me on a very low level.
For those who have been offended by this, you have my email; I will allow each of you three free punches, or two kicks in the shin. But this is my position, and I stand by it until I am proved otherwise.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-08-13 10:11 am (UTC)I don't like smoking. It bothers me. I think that smoking is a flaw. And while I don't go around telling people that they'd better quit smoking or else, I do have a problem with it. I have something against people who smoke. My understanding of what it means to have something against someone and your understanding of it must be different.
Why is it any different for a man who is gay to be put in such an exalted position than it would be for a man who is straight? Both can have sex for the wrong reasons. I think it's very unfair to have such a bias against the gay man, simply because he is gay, and recognizes the fact that he is gay, and can't change that fact any more than you or I could change the fact that we are attracted to the opposite sex.
I'm not offended. I'm just having problems understanding.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-14 08:07 am (UTC)Another good point.
I'm afraid this may be one of those discrepancies in speach... See, generally, I don't have anything against people personally. I do, often, take issue with what they do. I don't hate a smoker for being a smoker, you see, but I do hate that they smoke, if you follow the difference I'm presenting. There PERSON is not at issue. The same goes for homosexuality, I suppose. Personally, I do still like who they are, but I do not like some of the things they do, and I do think some of the things they do are wrong -- this simply follows from the fact that I think certain things are basically wrong. I DO go around telling people to quit -- telling them what I think of their actions -- because it is the action which I take offense with. I have many friends who smoke, a number of whom I count among my closest friends; I have told them all that I think they should quit, and I remind them of such from time to time.
And I think, maybe, that it isn't so much that the man is gay... What's that mean? It means he has certain desires, right? We ALL have certain desires, it's senseless to distinguish between them (though, as a side note, there are rightly ordered desires - "Mmm, I want pizza" - and wrongly ordered desires - pedophilia - but that's a topic for another time). Aside from the distinction that my parenthetical brings up, and more in line with the direction THIS post took, it's more a matter that he's openly gay, by which I have understood it to mean he's gay, he's proud of it, and he sees no harm in it. It's rather the difference between a man trying to quit and a man who not only accepts that he's a smoker, but sees no reason for him or anyone to quit. A a point of fact, I would not condone an open pedophile, or open adulterer, or anything else, in so far as 'open' means "There's nothing wrong with this."
Am I slightly more clear, perhapse? ^_^;;
no subject
Date: 2003-08-13 02:10 pm (UTC)Wait a second, if you whole thing aaginst homosexuality is their sex outside of marraige, and now a church is basically saying they can get married, then you can't really have a thing against that anymore can you?
the trouble is in the act
Now that is the catholic teaching, but to catholics the act is sex without the possibility of procreation. Now what if the catholic church changed its mind, and said gay people could get married. Does that lower the act to premarital sex, which it doesn't take a homosexual to do?
for the unity of the couple and the procreation of new life
interesting how if they drop the whole procreation part, it fits just fine....
I am not attempting to argue because I have mixed feelings on the subject, just thinking alound.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-14 07:36 am (UTC)Firstly, this post goes to show that 'their sex outside of marriage' isn't what I have against them, but rather their sex at all, as I believe Leslie noted above. Secondly, the church which is condoning this isn't MY church; there are a number of differences between Catholicism and Episcopals, which is why they are, for most intents and purposes, different religions.
"Now what if the catholic church changed its mind..."
You miss the key point in that the Catholic Church has never 'changed its mind' on issues of faith and morals, even when evil men we named Pope. I don't even see this as a possibility; but, on the chance that someone would claim such is the case, I can see it as one of the things which might cause the final split between Roman Catholicism and American Catholicism.
"interesting how if they drop the whole procreation part, it fits just fine..."
Depending on how you define the term 'just fine,' yes, it is rather.
"I am not attempting to argue because I have mixed feelings on the subject, just thinking aloud."
Quite alright; in the strictest sense, I'm not arguing, either. But then, on the other hand, it seems we have both presented arguments...